[Deleted User]

Dear Peggy;

If it were my letter, I would offer a simple definition of autism as a lifelong neurological condition characterized by a fragmented intellectual and emotive development, of which the symptoms are most noticably "social" deficits (that covers everything from speech to academic competency to appropriate behavioural responses).

I would then explain that the "symptoms" of such are effectively ameliorated via aba, a "treatment" which incidentally was deemed "medically-necessary" in the Auton case, B.C. Supreme Court, 2000.

Perhaps it would then be a good idea to point out that (because school walls are not sound-proof), for the educational benefit of your child, and all of his schoolmates, it is essential that there be consistency between home, community, and school in regard to an already established aba program; that anything less will undermine gains already made, and will be extremely damaging to your child's continued progress and well-being.

Make a point to say that not only is your son deserving of this consideration, but that it is their charge to reconcile what the courts have said in conjunction with their mandate as trustees to achieve active inclusionary policy and practices in their district. After all, the ministry of education does not exist to accomodate the agenda of either BCTF or CUPE, its mandate is to promote the education of all of the province's children in the best possible manner.

This is just bare-bones-ing it off the top of my head, but I think that ought to put you in the right direction.

Perhaps even cite that there is pending legislation (section 6, bill 28) to address these kinds of special needs issues and that it would be to the benefit of the entire district to be proactive on this front.

Good luck to you!

[Deleted User]

POEM in our local paper a few years back:
"Inclusion of Special Needs Children In The Classroom" by Lisa Graham

As pencil shavings curl and dangle t'ward the floor;
Stars reclaim the summer sky — schools unlock their doors.
In their desks, row by row, as challenge to all 'teacher-kind',
Are freshly sun-tanned faces with willing hearts and lively minds.

September pairs of sneaker laces, sparkling clean and white as snow,
Await their lessons restlessly with bouncing, swinging, tapping toes.
And lunchbags and thermoses and important other stuff
Are packed in sacks and satchels — the school year is again begun.

And so we too, into your care, place our 'special' sons and daughters;
Their needs may differ from the rest but they're here as all the rest are.
And through the next ten months until we close this new school year,
We pray their days are smooth enough that you'll feel glad they're here.

There will be trying moments – we know – we live them everyday …
But sense of purpose and human kindness go such a long, long way.
And the twenty-one other children whose eyes and minds you lead
Learn more than academics — they follow word and deed.

And so it is with gratitude, we place our trust in you …
To work with us and grow with us — to start this year anew.

[Deleted User]

Yes, there are good and bad S.E.A.s out there, as there are good and bad teachers, and good and bad principals, and good and bad dentists, etc.

One problem is that there is no uniform criteria for hiring S.E.A.s, and that betrays the whole notion of consistency re: delivery of 'service' between home, school, and commuity which can be very detrimental to our children.

Alternately, if you have a supportive principal and "flexible" senior admin. in your district, and if you have official letters from everyone who is connected to your child — behavioural therapists, SLPs, OTs, PTs, from your GP, your pediatrician, from FEAT, from ASBC, from family, and friends, etc.,
…and if you enlist the support of the BCTF or even just teachers you know, perhaps even just the teachers from your child's school(after all, every teacher knows and appreciates the value of having a competent S.E.A. on the frontlines);
…and if you make a request to make a presentation to your local CUPE exec.(very much the same way you address schoolboard via the delegation process). By presenting to the CUPE executive, it will force them to recognize the human-ness of this issue. And making this issue "human" will be the cornerstone to proper resolution of this specific "systemic" injustice; it will make it difficult for the CUPE exec. (or anybody else who is made aware) to deny what is educationally-sound/what is best for your child in favour of their own benefit, or in favour of some larger agenda, …at the very least, it will make them have to say "no" to your face.
…And go to your local press, and phone into radio talk shows to raise the topic — let the public know who has supported you and who has denied you what is best for your child, and let them know just how they have done that — especially if CUPE denies you opportunity to even address their exec., and the reason I say this, is that with the political climate being what it is right now, the unions really have their heels dug in deep — they may try and cut you off at the knees in order to avoid confronting the issue with you in a direct manner, … remember, seniority is the "mother" principal of all unions, and we are asking that they put that aside for the benefit of our children.

By doing all of this right now, starting today, you may be successful in appealing to hire a particular S.E.A. by lobbying your schoolboard to implement a "special-skills clause" in their collective agreement with CUPE –and this part is really important to remember, ** THIS IS AN ELECTION YEAR **. If you can "nail-down" those who wish to be re-elected, at the very least, you have a sort of verbal contract with them that they will act to remedy this problem.

At best though, if you are successful, it still is just an interim fix, and will only be specific to your district, or perhaps even just to your own personal situation.

Problem number two, …once a competent S.E.A. is found, section 6 of bill 28, [whereby the better interests of the special needs child will be given priority over the seniority bumping principle (should there be lay-offs,etc.)] has not yet been given royal assent. We need this enshrined in the Act asap. In regard to problem #2, we need to bear some pressure on the Ministry of Education to get this piece of legislation drafted and implemented asap so that once we resolve problem #1, especially if it is only on an individual level, the functional relationship you fought to establish will-not/cannot be sabotaged either by indidividual, union, or other systemic political agendas.

There is no easy fix, but there is hope, opportunity, and logic on our side — this is not about teachers, or CUPE, or the Ministry of Education, … it is about what is best for our children. Unfortunately, in the process of doing what is best for your child, you risk being called anti-union and anti-government, all in the same breath!! Go figure!

Good luck!

[Deleted User]

Dear Peggy,
CUPE bargaining is now done on a provincial basis so it doesn't matter how "strict" they are…. I am a member of the union and in a very "strict" district. I presented a dr's letter to my son's school and HR and his job posting has been changed to suit the requirements. If there is no one who meets the requirements, the posting will be held externally. Hiring will be done at the end of August so only time will tell if it works! But the school district has to follow the requirements. I can tell you that often CUPE is used as an excuse as to hiring practices. I didn't realize how postings are set until I asked why deaf students get a trained ASL SEA and how could I do the same thing for my son. It was CUPE who told me!

[Deleted User]

If you wish to have a SEA for your child that has certain qualifications you need to get a letter from your doctor stating the need, qualifications and why. Present a copy to the school and to the human resources director. Under the CUPE collective agreement variances from standard hiring practices must be accommodated by such a letter.

[Deleted User]

re: By Debra Antifaev (Antifaev) on Monday, July 29, 2002 – 10:16 pm:

Dear Debra,

I personally resent your implication in this forum that my involvement in the requisition is nothing but "sour grapes". I believe that, in spite of the fact that the election was valid under the constitution of the time, the events at the AGM did not allow for a fair or democratic election. This is not about FEAT vs. ASBC vs. …. I believe in FEAT's work and I believe that ABA has helped my son. But to me, it is about the integrity of the democratic process.

I also ask you to note that I am not running for the board on August 8th.

Alexandria Stuart

[Deleted User]

I received an interesting notice in the mail.

Extraordinary General Meeting
Thursday, August 8th, 2002

Wesburn Community Centre
4781 Parkwood Ave, Burnaby
6:30-7:30pm

The Autism Society of BC is in receipt of a requisition to hold a general meeting of the society.

The stated purpose of the meeting presented in the requisition is to:
-remove the present board of directors of the society
-appoint a new board of directors

The directors may be removed by a "special resolution" of the members. A "special resolution" may only be passed by a majority of not less than 75% of the votes of those members who are eligible to vote and who are present at the meeting.

In accordance with the amended constitution and bylaws approved at the AGM June 1,2002, a member must be in good standing for 30 days prior to a general meeting in order to be eligible to vote at that meeting. All members of the society are welcome to attend the meeting.

I would like to encourage All FEAT members who are eligible to come out and vote. Your individualized funding may be in jeopardy! Let's show our support for our fellow FEAT members who are on the board of directors.

[Deleted User]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Papal Knight’s Great Grandson faces Tragedy Amidst Canada’s Celebration of
Youth

TORONTO, Ontario – July 23, 2002 – Another ironical twist of fate for young Luke Burrows unfolds while Toronto anticipates the arrival of the Pope. Burrows is the great grandson of Sir John Leo Whitney who was bestowed the highest honor of the Roman Catholic Church. In 1957 Whitney was awarded Papal Decoration by the Vatican, his title Knight Commander of the Order of St. Gregory. At the time there were only 100 people in the world Knighted by the Vatican and Roman Catholic Church. Whitney contributed tirelessly to the Church throughout his life, and flew to Rome for a private audience with Pope John Paul the twenty-third.

Whitney’s granddaughter has been fighting for her son’s right to effective treatment for Autism, a neurological illness. In the imminent face of termination of her son’s treatment due to the extraordinary cost she points out, “ It is wonderful that we are welcoming the Pope in such a fantastic celebration of life and youth, it is just so tragic that thousands of our own Ontario children with Autism including my son will never get the opportunity that the future leaders of our world are celebrating this week. They will never be able to celebrate their youth, because their futures are being stolen from them by an arbitrary government policy, which cuts off effective Autism treatment at age six.”

Whitney’s son will have to stop his fight to reach his full potential at the end of July when their funds run out. His mother has raised almost ten thousand dollars to try to keep him in treatment, but sadly it falls short. “ I wish my son’s great grandfather were still with us today, I am confident the Church would recognize through one of my grand –dads Herculean efforts, that this vulnerable group of society needs their attention.
With mixed emotion of the day Whitney reads from the Bible;
Mark chapter 10 verse 14
“Jesus said unto them
Let the little children come to me,
And do not hinder them,
For the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”

For little Luke, perhaps a Miracle is needed for the Government of Ontario to remove the hindering barriers of beurocratic policy for him to one day stand with the Pope and celebrate his life and youth.

-30-

[Deleted User]

As a working parent with a child who won't get the current IEII program I share everyone's frustration. I agree that the government has no right to cut off the funding at age 6 or 7, and discriminate by saying our children needs to have a team assessment.

I want ABA for my child, and my child is high function but the cost are so high. I also feel that our government in the "health care" should handle the costs rather then the MCFD. I know we all agree on this one.

Ideally the Ministry of Health would take over as it is a doctor diagnosis, and it is deemed a medical disablity. Why in the world does our government allow people who have no medical training, background etc… fund our children? I know you have all fought for us, and want this same thing. This must change. ABA is medically neccessary, my child is very high function and deserves this treatment.

I also want to say one parent said it best in a previous post (unrealted topic) we are parents of children with autism, not abused kids. Shame on this government for not funding our children with MSP. What are we paying taxes for?

It is our parental right to decide if our child grows old with us or not, but I would much rather a better chance for all our children of a normal life rather then one of dependency. If the schools listened to the legal judgement they also would have ABA trained SEA'S. It amazes me that SEA'S in classrooms in this province have 8 week courses ONLY. We need these things to CHANGE. Thank you FEAT for allowing us to express ourselves.

Sabrina – Thank you! Without you or Jean and the other parents of Feat we would be all doomed.

Also, most parents I know in average working families cannot afford ABA and therefore this province affects more people then it serves. I am not against praising where praise is do, and I realize that income should have no bearing on medically neccessary treatment.

[Deleted User]

Thank you Norrah.

I too am apalled at the deliberate and blatant discriminatory policy our government is perpetrating and the fact that so many people are willing to support it.

ABA treatment (and I am talking 'gold standard'), per year, does not cost more than institutional care for an autistic adult. Even if a child received ABA treatment from age 2 to 18 the cost is far less than what it would be to place that individual in institutional care for life.

The argument of cost is really a smoke and mirrors show. Not treating Autism or stopping treatment at age 6 is actually defering the cost (with interest!) to a later date. It is our typical children who are going to inherit the burden and cost of caring for their peers who are refused treatment by our government today. That cost will be far greater tommorrow than the cost of treatment today.

As a society what does that really say about us? That we are all equal but some people are more equal than others? For our government it's not really about money, its about ignorance, its about discrimination, its about being self serving, its about playing god with someone elses life. Its about denying children their right to medical treatment so that they can instead spend the money to buy some votes tommorrow.

As a parent of a child facing this neglect from the society he was born into I am more than indignant, I am outraged, disturbed ,and saddened by the pain and suffering that autistic children and their families endure. I can see the emotional scars in the face of the parent who is distraught at the prospect of losing her adolescent child to institutional care because the behaviours are now beyond her ability to manage or control. I can feel the confusion of the little boy who screams and screams because he is suffering from the disease of autism, because he can't make sense of his world, because he is over six and doesn't merit treatment, never got it , and if our government has its way, never will. It just stabs you in the heart to look around your community and know that these people, your child included, are considered second class citizens to some people, that someone decided that they will just have to suffer.

Our government has 'forgiven' millions in loans that has benefitted big business. This proves Norrah's point that the money is there, just not for our kids. There are a large number of people in my community who are employed (and very well paid) by the government and 'working' with Autistic children. Yet none of these children are receiving 'treatment' so the no money argument will never wash with me.

I want to encourage everyone NOT to be satisfied with the current EIBI program and its level of funding, its parameters, or the bottlenecks designed to control access to it. It is way too little too late! It is not nearly enough. It is dicriminatory and continues to deny treatment to many children who would really benefit from it. EIBI is for many children a program that obstructs any opportunity for recovery.

[Author]

Posts